Letter of William Williams to the Landholder

WilliamWilliams

Monday, February 11, 1788

Mr. Babcock:

Since the Federal Constitution has had so calm, dispassionate
and so happy an issue, in the late worthy Convention of this
State; I did not expect any members of that hon. body to be
challenged in a News-paper[21], and especially by name, and by
anonymous writers, on account of their opinion, or decently expressing
their sentiments relative to the great subject then under
consideration, or any part of it. Nor do I yet see the propriety,
or happy issue of such a proceeding. However as a gentleman
in your Paper feels uneasy, that every sentiment contained in his
publications, (tho' in general they are well written) is not received
with perfect acquiescence and submission, I will endeavour
to satisfy him, or the candid reader, by the same channel,
that I am not so reprehensible as he supposes, in the matter
refer'd to. When the clause in the 6th article, which provides
that “no religious test should ever be required as a
qualification to any office or trust, &c.” came under consideration,
I observed I should have chose that sentence and anything
relating to a religious test, had been totally omitted rather than
stand as it did, but still more wished something of the kind
should have been inserted, but with a reverse sense, so far as to
require an explicit acknowledgment of the being of a God, his
perfections and his providence, and to have been prefixed to, and
stand as, the first introductory words of the Constitution, in the
following or similar terms, viz. We the people of the United
States, in a firm belief of the being and perfections of the one living
and true God, the creator and supreme Governour of the world, in
his universal providence and the authority of his laws; that he will
require of all moral agents an account of their conduct; that all
rightful powers among men are ordained of, and mediately derived
from God; therefore in a dependence on his blessing and acknowledgment
of his efficient protection in establishing our Independence,
whereby it is become necessary to agree upon and settle a Constitution
of federal government for ourselves, and in order to form a
more perfect union &c., as it is expressed in the present introduction,
do ordain &c. and instead of none, that no other religious
test should ever be required &c., and that supposing, but not
granting, this would be no security at all, that it would make
hypocrites, &c. yet this would not be a sufficient reason against
it; as it would be a public declaration against, and disapprobation
of men, who did not, even with sincerity, make such a profession,
and they must be left to the searcher of hearts; that it
would however, be the voice of the great body of the people, and
an acknowledgment proper and highly becoming them to express
on this great and only occasion, and according to the course of
Providence, one mean of obtaining blessings from the most high.
But that since it was not, and so difficult and dubious to get inserted,
I would not wish to make it a capital objection; that I
had no more idea of a religious test, which should restrain offices
to any particular sect, class, or denomination of men or
Christians in the long list of diversity, than to regulate their bestowments
by the stature or dress of the candidate, nor did I
believe one sensible catholic man in the state wished for such a
limitation; and that therefore the News-Paper observations, and
reasonings (I named no author) against a test, in favour of any
one denomination of Christians, and the sacrilegious injunctions
of the test laws of England &c., combatted objections which did
not exist, and was building up a man of straw and knocking him
down again. These are the same and only ideas and sentiments
I endeavoured to communicate on that subject, tho' perhaps not
precisely in the same terms; as I had not written, nor preconceived
them, except the proposed test, and whether there is any
reason in them or not, I submit to the public.

I freely confess such a test and acknowledgment would have
given me great additional satisfaction; and I conceive the arguments
against it, on the score of hypocrisy, would apply with
equal force against requiring an oath from any officer of the
united or individual states; and with little abatement, to any oath
in any case whatever; but divine and human wisdom, with universal
experience, have approved and established them as useful,
and a security to mankind.

I thought it was my duty to make the observations, in this behalf,
which I did, and to bear my testimony for God; and that
it was also my duty to say the Constitution, with this, and some
other faults of another kind, was yet too wise and too necessary
to be rejected.

W. Williams.

P. S.—I could not have suspected the Landholder (if I know
him) to be the author of the piece referred to; but if he or any
other is pleased to reply, without the signature of his proper
name, he will receive no further answer or notice from me.

Feb. 2d, 1788.

[21] This letter was occasioned by the following communication,
which was printed in the Connecticut Courant for Monday, February
4, 1788, (number 1202):

To the Hon. William Williams, Esq.

Sir:—Whenever
one man makes a charge against another,
reason and justice require that he should be able to support the
charge. In some late publications, I have offered my sentiments
on the new constitution, have adduced some arguments in favour
of it, and answered objections to it. I did not wish to enter into
a controversy with any man. But I am unwilling to have accusations
publickly thrown out against me, without an opportunity
to answer them. In the late convention, when a religious test was
the subject of debate, you took the liberty of saying that the
Landholder (in treating of the same subject) had missed the point;
that he had raised up a man of straw, and kicked it over again.
Now, Sir, I wish this matter may be fairly cleared up. I wish to
know, what is the real point? Who and what the real man is?
Or in other words, what a religious test is? I certainly have a
right to expect that you will answer these questions, and let me
know wherein I am in the wrong. Perhaps you may show that
my ideas on the subject are erroneous. In order to do this, it
would not be amiss to offer a few reasons and arguments. You
doubtless had such as were convincing, at least to yourself,
though you happen to omit them at the time of the debate. If
you will shew that I am in the wrong, I will candidly acknowledge
my mistake. If on the contrary you should be unable to
prove your assertions, the public will judge, whether you or I
have missed the point; and which of us has committed the crime of
making a man of straw.

Not doubting but you will have the candour to come to an explanation
on this subject,

I am, Sir, your humble servant,

The Landholder.

[21]
From The Landholder's statement printed at page 195 of this
volume, it appears that this signature was employed by another
man, in this instance.